--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Steve Hill <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Steve Hill <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FireFox 3 EULA > To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Monday, September 15, 2008, 5:01 AM > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote: > > > Did you read it? > > Yep. > > > Some apps show you a EULA for the GPL when they > install. And if you can7t > > agree to the GPL, you can click disagree and refrain > from installing. > > The GPL is not an EULA - the end user is not required to > agree to it in > order to use the software. In fact, requiring the user to > agree to any > licence (GPL or otherwise) before they can use a piece > GPLed software is > itself a breach of the GPL. > > > My memory of the FireFox EULA is that it's > basically the same thing, but with > > the Mozilla license. > > Again, the Mozilla license is not an EULA - the end user is > not required > to agree to it in order to use the software. > > > I don't remember what the name of the > > group that claims to define open source is, but they > also have a bit to say > > about such things. > > The FSF define the four freedoms. The first of those is > "The freedom to > run the program, for any purpose" which clearly an > EULA would prevent > since it places restrictions on exactly what you can do > with the software. > > > Sure, a dialogue where you have to click a button that > says you read the > > license is a bit of a pain, and is a bit against the > real concepts of freedom > > of thought, but when we have people who would like to > treat all open source > > and free software licenses like the 1-clause BSD > license, it may not be > > unreasonable for the authors to try to get a little > bit in the face of the > > users about the responsibilities of freedom. > > Could you explain what purpose you believe an EULA serves? > > Could you also explain how you believe an EULA can be > enforcable, given > that you can never prove someone agreed (maybe they hacked > it out of the > software so they didn't have to click the "I > agree" button, or maybe > someone else or their cat agreed to it). This isn't > some signed bit of > paper where you can prove that a specific person signed it > - it is a > button on a bit of software which you are assuming a > specific person > clicked without having any evidence to support it. > > > If the EULA goes beyond the "approved" > free/open versions of the Mozilla > > license, you may have something to worry about. Do > you think that's the > > case? > > No, the EULA is quite clear that it only applies to the > official version, > which is why IceWeasel isn't covered. > > - Steve > xmpp:steve@xxxxxxxxxxx sip:steve@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.nexusuk.org/ > > Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, > Evanescence > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines Thought this was somewhat related to the thread: Fedora ain't playin' around w/Firefox 3 http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Fedora/2008-06/msg02165.html Regards, Antonio http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/ -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
